<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget - Comments for Details of 3D cable demo at Cable-Tec emerge </title>
<link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/details-of-3d-cable-demo-at-cable-tec-emerge/</link>
<description>Engadget Comments for Details of 3D cable demo at Cable-Tec emerge </description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Details of 3D cable demo at Cable-Tec emerge ]]></title><link>http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/details-of-3d-cable-demo-at-cable-tec-emerge/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/28/details-of-3d-cable-demo-at-cable-tec-emerge/</guid><description><![CDATA[Dear Engadget,<br><br>Can you please consider having another site call engadget3d.com?<br><br>I have no interest in 3D whatsoever. If I see another 3D article, I'm gonna scream!<br><br>I don't care what anyone says. Although considerably improved, 3D is still a lame money-grabbing gimmick, that does little to improve the content. It improves the viewing experience in some small ways, but detracts from it in others. Plus, wearing those damn glasses is distractingly annoying.<br><br>I'm interested in HD technology only.<br><br>Thank you.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Darren]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Oct 29th 2009 9:21AM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
